|
Title: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: ChrisB on April 30, 2015, 14:09:57 From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32531004)
Quote Clapham Junction and Victoria rail 'chaos' after power cut Thousands of rail passengers have been evacuated from trains after a power cut in south London left people stranded during rush hour for up to five hours. The electrical problem struck between Wandsworth Common and Clapham Junction, resulting in trains in and out of Victoria station being suspended. All Gatwick Express services were cancelled and passengers on Southern trains were badly affected. Emergency services were eventually called to rescue commuters. Passengers had to be evacuated after being held on trains for hours London Fire Brigade helped 2,000 passengers off a stranded train in Battersea. Spokesman Nic Myatt said: "We are using a short extension ladder to assist Network Rail and British Transport police in detraining approximately 2,000 people along the tracks and on to a rail replacement bus service." Police and paramedics had to bring water on board some trains for passengers who had been stuck on non-moving trains without air conditioning for up to five hours. A tweet from British Transport Police said: "More trains being evacuated. We're getting officers to trains still stalled where possible. Thank you for your patience." Passengers spoke of nightmare conditions at Clapham Junction, while there were reports that a London-bound train that left Brighton at 06:56 BST was still outside Clapham at 12:00. Some commuters were stranded for up to five hours A spokesman for Southern Trains said: "The Brighton train is in the Coates Avenue area near Clapham Junction and we are getting it moved by a diesel engine to Wandsworth Common." He said 900 people had been taken off another train which had been travelling between East Grinstead and Victoria. "Those passengers are being taken off the train at Battersea Rise," he added. "I have no reports yet as to how they are." Anna Roberts, who works in the Victoria area of London, was stuck on a London-bound train travelling from Brighton. She said the situation was so bad police and paramedics had to bring water supplies on board which were passed around the carriage. "With the power off it's like an oven in here," she added. "Police have said it's too dangerous to walk down the track. "They said they were bringing water but not enough for every one to have one bottle each. Eventually we got water in plastic containers." Others train passengers struggled to get in and out of overcrowded stations. Southern Trains had two of its four lines running again by lunchtime but said disruption was expected to last all day. Platforms at Clapham Junction were crowded as people waited for trains Another tweet from Thomas Michael Jules said: "Avoid Clapham Junction today people! Mayhem!!" Earlier a fire near Clapham Junction caused hold-ups to services on London Overground. A Network Rail spokesman said engineers were on site and trying to resume services as quickly as possible. South West Trains services to and from Waterloo via Clapham Junction were unaffected. Never rains, but it pours Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: TaplowGreen on April 30, 2015, 15:20:44 Must have been a truly horrific experience on overcrowded, overheated peak time trains............however as we are constantly told by FGW and other TOCs, there is no maximum capacity on a train and this represents no risk to Health and Safety ::)
Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: IndustryInsider on April 30, 2015, 15:36:03 Get ready for this sort of event on a (hopefully) occasional basis once the GWML is fully electrified. That being said, at least the sensible provision of at least two diesel engines on all IEP trains will mean that they shouldn't be totally stranded with air-con and lighting failures, though the Thames Valley EMUs will be prone to exactly that.
Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: TaplowGreen on April 30, 2015, 15:56:40 Forgive my ignorance, but what is the current contingency plan when this happens? Is it to rely on the Emergency services or could diesel locos be used to drag the stranded stock to the nearest station?
Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Rhydgaled on April 30, 2015, 16:15:06 at least the sensible provision of at least two diesel engines on all IEP trains will mean that they shouldn't be totally stranded with air-con and lighting failures At least two diesel engines? I thought the 9-car 'electric' sets would only have one diesel engine, but your point still stands.I still remain to be convinced that the provision of a diesel engine on 'electric' sets is a good idea; nobody else has done it as far as I am aware (unlike the bi-mode concept for services which routinely run beyond the electrified network, which SNCF have also adopted to some extent) and one hopes the emergency engine on our new trains will seldom be used, so is it worth the increased capital and day-to-day costs? And the emergency engine won't help the (potentially more likely) suituation of the power remaining functional and the train able to move but with the heating/air-con system itself failed (as 158s and 166s seem to be critised for). Private cars have a solution to lack of air-con, namely windows that open fully (not just a small section at the top). Can't we have something similar on trains (strictly staff-only-operable of course)? I know the class 800/801 may well one day be permitted to travel twice as fast as private cars on the motorway network, but other countries permit cars to go as fast as they like on limited sections of the road network. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: IndustryInsider on April 30, 2015, 17:08:22 I was under the impression that the 9-car trains will have two Diesel engines. Happy to be corrected on that one though.
Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: stuving on April 30, 2015, 17:46:36 The explanation on National Rail is a bit different:
Quote Incident created 30/04/2015 08:20 Last updated 30/04/2015 17:00 Description Problems with the conductor rail between Wandsworth Common and Clapham Junction have caused damage to a number of trains. Engineers are working to move the trains. Once they have moved repairs will be made to the damaged conductor rail and this may take up to 3 hours. Because of the severity of the problem, trains are likely to be disrupted until the end of the day. A reduced service is currently running from and to London Victoria and Gatwick Express services are currently suspended. It started with trains on the Up Fast, so presumably that was where the track damage was. Its relevance to FGW post-electrification may be more than you think - the first train to not reach Viictoria (2A17) is explained as: Quote This service was cancelled between Clapham Junction and London Victoria due to an obstruction of the overhead line (I3). Now that's philosophically difficult. You can understand "problems with the overhead line" if the problem is that there is none. But how can something that's not there be obstructed? Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: a-driver on April 30, 2015, 17:57:37 Get ready for this sort of event on a (hopefully) occasional basis once the GWML is fully electrified. That being said, at least the sensible provision of at least two diesel engines on all IEP trains will mean that they shouldn't be totally stranded with air-con and lighting failures, though the Thames Valley EMUs will be prone to exactly that. We're also getting additional thunderbird locos, probably extra 57s as they are already fitted with the necessary coupling equipment, to be based a various locations across the FGW network. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: ChrisB on April 30, 2015, 18:07:41 You aren't expecting the diesel engine underneath the electric IEPs to work the aircon, are you? It'll only just about move the 9car a few miles
Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Electric train on April 30, 2015, 18:25:09 You aren't expecting the diesel engine underneath the electric IEPs to work the aircon, are you? It'll only just about move the 9car a few miles According to the presentation Hitachi gave at an IET event 2 years ago for the "all electric" (the ones that do not normally operate bi-mode) the diesel engine will maintain the "hotel" services ie lighting and aircon in excess of the 6 hours specified by DfT also will be able to move the train at 30 mph Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: TaplowGreen on April 30, 2015, 18:41:03 Finsbury Park, London Bridge, Paddington.........now this one, the litany of chaos continues.....and guess what? The NR spokesman said "lessons will be learned"..........again!
Just watched the report on the News having spoken to a pal who was on one of the trains, utter ineptitude, no organisation or plan put in place - people stranded on packed, overcrowded and overheated trains for 4 or 5 hours! Can someone who works in the Rail Industry please attempt to explain why this pathetic response to the incident was the best that could be managed, and perhaps what is the contingency plan where such an (unusual but entirely predictable) incident occurs? Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: chrisr_75 on April 30, 2015, 18:48:37 You aren't expecting the diesel engine underneath the electric IEPs to work the aircon, are you? It'll only just about move the 9car a few miles According to the presentation Hitachi gave at an IET event 2 years ago for the "all electric" (the ones that do not normally operate bi-mode) the diesel engine will maintain the "hotel" services ie lighting and aircon in excess of the 6 hours specified by DfT also will be able to move the train at 30 mph I do wonder how reliable these engines (and generators) will actually be if they are only run under serious load conditions once in a blue moon - diesel engines generally like to be well used and any mechanical device tends not to respond to well to lack of use. Perhaps there are arrangements in place for them to be fully utilised on a regular basis as part of their maintenance or for movements in and around depots? Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: chrisr_75 on April 30, 2015, 18:59:22 Finsbury Park, London Bridge, Paddington.........now this one, the litany of chaos continues.....and guess what? The NR spokesman said "lessons will be learned"..........again! Just watched the report on the News having spoken to a pal who was on one of the trains, utter ineptitude, no organisation or plan put in place - people stranded on packed, overcrowded and overheated trains for 4 or 5 hours! Can someone who works in the Rail Industry please attempt to explain why this pathetic response to the incident was the best that could be managed, and perhaps what is the contingency plan where such an (unusual but entirely predictable) incident occurs? Just because lessons are learned doesn't mean you necessarily bother to implement those learnings in the form of improved processes & procedures! It does seem pretty pathetic to leave it to the emergency services to both evacuate and attempt to ensure the welfare (water distribution) of those unfortunate passengers involved.It surely can't be beyond the realms of possibility that the power supply might fail at some point?! Do the police/fire/ambulance services charge Network Rail & the TOC for their time, in much the same way as they recoup their costs from your insurers if you are involved in a collision on the road requiring their involvement? Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Electric train on April 30, 2015, 20:35:00 Finsbury Park, London Bridge, Paddington.........now this one, the litany of chaos continues.....and guess what? The NR spokesman said "lessons will be learned"..........again! Just watched the report on the News having spoken to a pal who was on one of the trains, utter ineptitude, no organisation or plan put in place - people stranded on packed, overcrowded and overheated trains for 4 or 5 hours! Can someone who works in the Rail Industry please attempt to explain why this pathetic response to the incident was the best that could be managed, and perhaps what is the contingency plan where such an (unusual but entirely predictable) incident occurs? Just because lessons are learned doesn't mean you necessarily bother to implement those learnings in the form of improved processes & procedures! It does seem pretty pathetic to leave it to the emergency services to both evacuate and attempt to ensure the welfare (water distribution) of those unfortunate passengers involved.It surely can't be beyond the realms of possibility that the power supply might fail at some point?! Do the police/fire/ambulance services charge Network Rail & the TOC for their time, in much the same way as they recoup their costs from your insurers if you are involved in a collision on the road requiring their involvement? Generally no the blue light services do not charge, basically because the number of turn outs is miniscule compared to RTA's. NR will have had its team of MOMs (mobile operations managers) deployed, in London there are a number of these deployed with BTP who respond to incidents with blues and twos. The MOMs take on the role of RIO (Rail Incident Officer) and lease with the blue light incident officers all of whom form what is called Silver Command, this incident may have escalated to Gold Command which will be senior managers / officers being involved. NR staff that can actually be deployed to respond to these type incidents is very small, many NR staff are just not trained to go out and about on the railway and certainly not in how to deal with incidents, the blue light services are specialists, the MOMs role is to make the railway safe, that is talk to the signaller and ECR to get all the confirmations it is safe and then the blue light services will set to work. This all sounds like it takes a long time to set up well it doesn't typically the MOM can secure even a complex area in a matter of a few minuets. Almost certainly the procedure of this panel http://www.leslp.gov.uk/ will have been implemented, both TfL and NR are asked to input into this panel. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: IndustryInsider on April 30, 2015, 23:30:55 You aren't expecting the diesel engine underneath the electric IEPs to work the aircon, are you? It'll only just about move the 9car a few miles Yes I am! Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: TaplowGreen on May 01, 2015, 05:57:04 Quote Generally no the blue light services do not charge, basically because the number of turn outs is miniscule compared to RTA's. NR will have had its team of MOMs (mobile operations managers) deployed, in London there are a number of these deployed with BTP who respond to incidents with blues and twos. The MOMs take on the role of RIO (Rail Incident Officer) and lease with the blue light incident officers all of whom form what is called Silver Command, this incident may have escalated to Gold Command which will be senior managers / officers being involved. NR staff that can actually be deployed to respond to these type incidents is very small, many NR staff are just not trained to go out and about on the railway and certainly not in how to deal with incidents, the blue light services are specialists, the MOMs role is to make the railway safe, that is talk to the signaller and ECR to get all the confirmations it is safe and then the blue light services will set to work. This all sounds like it takes a long time to set up well it doesn't typically the MOM can secure even a complex area in a matter of a few minuets. Almost certainly the procedure of this panel http://www.leslp.gov.uk/ will have been implemented, both TfL and NR are asked to input into this panel. ...........so basically the contingency plan consists of "call 999" - I bet the emergency services are delighted - thank God there were no major fires in the area..........and 4 hours for people to be stranded in an overcrowded, overheated environment without adequate water or basic facilities sounds like a long time to me. Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: ellendune on May 01, 2015, 07:41:19 ...........so basically the contingency plan consists of "call 999" - I bet the emergency services are delighted - thank God there were no major fires in the area..........and 4 hours for people to be stranded in an overcrowded, overheated environment without adequate water or basic facilities sounds like a long time to me. The M4 was closed near Swindon due to an accident yesterday and drivers were delayed. No as much as 4 hours, but there was chaos in Swindon. There have been similar incidents on the M4 when cars were trapped for 4-5 hours. So do In the last few years they have recruited a few Traffic Officers who can deal with minor incidents - but otherwise they rely on the emergency services. Why should Network Rail be any different? Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: broadgage on May 01, 2015, 08:39:22 You aren't expecting the diesel engine underneath the electric IEPs to work the aircon, are you? It'll only just about move the 9car a few miles According to the presentation Hitachi gave at an IET event 2 years ago for the "all electric" (the ones that do not normally operate bi-mode) the diesel engine will maintain the "hotel" services ie lighting and aircon in excess of the 6 hours specified by DfT also will be able to move the train at 30 mph For reasons already given, I have considerable misgivings about the new trains. One of the few good points IMHO is the fitting of limited diesel power to the nominally electric trains so as to permit of low speed operation to the next station etc when the OHLE falls down or otherwise fails. When nothing can move for hours, the ability to work air conditioning could be vital. IIRC, the 9 car units are to have 2 engines, and the half length units a single engine. I think that depot movements are to be under diesel power, so hopefully the equipment will be reliable due to regular use. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Puffing Billy on May 01, 2015, 08:58:24 ... The M4 was closed near Swindon due to an accident yesterday ... There are significant differences between road and rail in these circumstances. I can take responsibility for my own safety and comfort by keeping water, food, blankets etc. in my car, but it is not practical to lug all these about on public transport. Also, if the standstill is clearly going to last a long time, I can simply get out of the car, and, providing I act sensibly, no-one is going to stop me.Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: TaplowGreen on May 01, 2015, 09:14:29 ... The M4 was closed near Swindon due to an accident yesterday ... There are significant differences between road and rail in these circumstances. I can take responsibility for my own safety and comfort by keeping water, food, blankets etc. in my car, but it is not practical to lug all these about on public transport. Also, if the standstill is clearly going to last a long time, I can simply get out of the car, and, providing I act sensibly, no-one is going to stop me.Agreed - in your car it's your own responsibility - trying to compare road & rail in these circumstances is simply not apples with apples.....it always amuses me how whenever rail cocks up and comes in for criticism, the rail lobby/fan club desperately hunt around for some other means of transport which has had problems and holds that up as an exemplar as if it somehow excuses their own failings......serious delays on the roads are generally the result of an accident or emergency - this is what the emergency services are for - for example the problems near Reading this week were as the result of a concrete lorry turning over and people being seriously injured.....what happened yesterday was an unusual but entirely foreseeable circumstance with no-one in immediate danger (ie train gets stuck and needs to be evacuated) for which there should be robust plans - to stand around scratching arses leaving people trapped for hours and then even expect the emergency services to deliver water supplies is a disgrace and I hope NR/TOC do get charged, as I would expect to be if I called the LFB to get my cat out of a tree! Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Electric train on May 01, 2015, 09:24:24 I guess NR could have an army of rapid response personnel, couple of questions though?
How many in these teams? What equipment would they need? Where would you base them? How will these teams of 'Hot Standby's' be paid for? They could not be deployed on any other duties because if they were needed and they were busy doing something else everyone would scream what a waste of money. The Blue Light Services working with NR (and LU) and local authorities are more than able to deal with these types of incident; there are regular meetings and training sessions carried out. The evacuation of a train onto the ballast is not taken lightly, the trackside is a hostile environment even for seasoned and well equipped railway staff; disembarking passengers is the last resort it may have been uncomfortable on the train but down on the track the risk of serious injury is very high. I am sure there will be a Board level enquiry into this and the ORR will expect NR to not only answer what caused the incident also how it was managed, the ORR will expect this quite quickly Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: JayMac on May 01, 2015, 09:27:41 I agree that comparing road incidents with rail ones isn't that helpful. Neither though is comparing rail incidents to cats stuck in trees. :P
Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: chrisr_75 on May 01, 2015, 10:04:48 it may have been uncomfortable on the train but down on the track the risk of serious injury is very high. I think you are trivialising this a little. An hour so or maybe is uncomfortable, but 4-5 hours stuck in a sealed tin box with no cooling & limited water could be extremely problematic for a diabetic, someone with cardio-pulmonary problems, a claustrophobic, a pregnant woman and so on. It's not possible to compare this with an incident on a motorway - on the railway you can simply stop everything moving, whereas it's virtually impossible to stop the buildup of traffic at an incident on a motorway. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Puffing Billy on May 01, 2015, 10:25:53 I guess NR could have an army of rapid response personnel ... I think this is slightly missing the point; I am not disputing so much whether the train/track companies should always be able to deal with this sort of incident themselves (although they could certainly do better), or whether they should call on the emergency services - rather I am saying that it should not take long to establish that an incident has occurred which MAY last several hours; at THAT point, if (a big "if) they have done everything they can, they should immediately call out the emergency services, not waste time trying to muddle through. If the emergency services end up being stood down because the incident has been resolved quicker than expected, so be it - a small percentage of cancelled callouts is not unreasonable.Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: ChrisB on May 01, 2015, 10:30:54 Errr....and a BIG fire threatening workers/terrorist outrage takes place while pax are on trains?....sorry, I know where I'd want the emergency services
Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: patch38 on May 01, 2015, 10:43:23 It's not possible to compare this with an incident on a motorway - on the railway you can simply stop everything moving, whereas it's virtually impossible to stop the buildup of traffic at an incident on a motorway. It's traffic build-up that scuppers even the best contingency plans. Highways England were very quick to implement the official diversionary route (A419 - B4192 - A4 - M4j14) yesterday. It is well signed on the ground and it was well-promoted on local and national radio, VMS on the M4 itself and on the web. But that route just can't take that sustained extra traffic load. Add in the 'unauthorized' alternatives (A346, C142, B4000 etc.), plus people slavishly following sat-nav and doubtless ending up in some very interesting places, and grid-lock occurs very rapidly as more and more traffic tries to feed into what is effectively a blocked system. The analogy with rail would be the photos we saw of passengers crammed onto platforms and bridges. So there are similarities! Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: broadgage on May 01, 2015, 10:55:01 ...........so basically the contingency plan consists of "call 999" - I bet the emergency services are delighted - thank God there were no major fires in the area..........and 4 hours for people to be stranded in an overcrowded, overheated environment without adequate water or basic facilities sounds like a long time to me. The M4 was closed near Swindon due to an accident yesterday and drivers were delayed. No as much as 4 hours, but there was chaos in Swindon. There have been similar incidents on the M4 when cars were trapped for 4-5 hours. So do In the last few years they have recruited a few Traffic Officers who can deal with minor incidents - but otherwise they rely on the emergency services. Why should Network Rail be any different? Not at all comparable. Those stuck in cars can open the windows for fresh air, open the doors to stretch their legs, or run the vehicle engine to provide heating, cooling, lighting or power electronic entertainments. Also those in cars get a seat, on a train this is optional with new designs being optimised for standing. Many motorists prudently keep bottled water, snacks, and a coat or blanket in cases of breakdown of their vehicle, or other prolonged delay. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: paul7575 on May 01, 2015, 10:56:41 I guess NR could have an army of rapid response personnel, couple of questions though? How many in these teams? What equipment would they need? Where would you base them? How will these teams of 'Hot Standby's' be paid for? They could not be deployed on any other duties because if they were needed and they were busy doing something else everyone would scream what a waste of money. London Underground's Emergency Response Unit (ERU) has people on permanent standby or training for response to accidents, and AIUI within central London, NR have an agreement to use them for mainline emergencies as well. I suppose if you are trained and equipped to deal with an incident in a tunnel, anything else is relatively straightforward. ERU have done re-railing of SWT trains before after derailment, so there must be an agreement for that as well, rather than using the national re-railing teams provided by DBS. Perhaps NR/LU have got together and found that using LU's existing expertise is better than trying to duplicate it? **** In the general case of incidents like this, when people report via twitter that they've been stuck on the train for X hours - are they usually including the time taken to get there? So add the time spent on normal travel from the south coast to the incident time? Some of the 5 or 6 hours reported will probably reduce once the analysis is done, but the right figures won't make the headlines... Paul Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Puffing Billy on May 01, 2015, 10:58:34 Errr....and a BIG fire threatening workers/terrorist outrage takes place while pax are on trains?....sorry, I know where I'd want the emergency services Well, the convenient terrorist attack could just as well take place hours later when the rail companies have finally decided to stop wasting time, and called out the emergency services anyway. And it is not as if you need half the police force to deal with a broken-down train or two - the police would no doubt provide enough staff to supervise, while they would delegate such work as necessary to people with the necessary skills and equipment, like plant hire companies. I have faith in the emergency services to assess, delegate, scale the operation up or down as necessary without compromising their ability to deal with any other incident that happens to occur at the same time.Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: ChrisB on May 01, 2015, 10:59:41 Indeed.
One tweet said he *left* Brighton at just before 6 & was still on the train at 1130....so about 4 hours in discomfort possibly, not 5+ as the press that picked this up made out. Still not comfortable though. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Tim on May 01, 2015, 11:02:30 , the trackside is a hostile environment even for seasoned and well equipped railway staff; disembarking passengers is the last resort it may have been uncomfortable on the train but down on the track the risk of serious injury is very high. Although the track environment becomes much less hostile once live conductor rails and moving trains are taken out of the equation. Although presumably once you have passengers trackside you potentially delay getting power back on and trains moving again. The hotel power donkey engine in the IEP is a good idea. It will not be infallible though and I would hope that there are also an option for emergency window opening or if not, a procedure for say opening a door but using a staff member or some kind of physical barrier to prevent people getting off. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: TaplowGreen on May 01, 2015, 11:03:14 I agree that comparing road incidents with rail ones isn't that helpful. Neither though is comparing rail incidents to cats stuck in trees. :P The question was asked further up the thread as to whether a charge would be levied against NR/TOC for utilising the emergency services in a non emergency situation - I was using the example of a cat stuck up a tree as a scenario where the caller could be charged by the Emergency services for their assistance, I wasn't being flippant.........although I did once rescue an unwilling cat from a tree and afterwards looked like I'd been savaged by a tiger so I guess it could go either way!!! :D Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Tim on May 01, 2015, 11:11:59 I agree that comparing road incidents with rail ones isn't that helpful. Neither though is comparing rail incidents to cats stuck in trees. :P The question was asked further up the thread as to whether a charge would be levied against NR/TOC for utilising the emergency services in a non emergency situation - I was using the example of a cat stuck up a tree as a scenario where the caller could be charged by the Emergency services for their assistance, I wasn't being flippant.........although I did once rescue an unwilling cat from a tree and afterwards looked like I'd been savaged by a tiger so I guess it could go either way!!! :D The rail industry is enough of a money go round anyway. NR is a public body paid for by the tax payer. So are the emergency services. Is there an overall net benefit of one public body sending an invoice to another? Unless it results in a tax cut or an improvement to public services I'd suggest that it would be a pointless exercise. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: ChrisB on May 01, 2015, 11:23:02 Fire Service is paid through Council Tax whereas NR is via general taxation (although isn't it actually making a profit now?)
So, you could nominally get a higher council tax (or council cuts elsewhere) is not refunded by NR Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Electric train on May 01, 2015, 13:28:55 LU first responders to an incident are BTP and LFB, the ERU back this up. The ERU is not a big team.
The track is a hostile environment even without live third rail and when trains have stopped, the ground is uneven, loose cable trough lids, cables, walking on ballast even with safety boots on is not easy with street shoes there is a high injury risk (this not mamby pamby 'elf n safety its from bitter experience). I am sure question will be asked by the ORR why passengers were left on a stranded train for so long. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: jane s on May 02, 2015, 11:14:26 Would prefer to take my chances on the tracks than be trapped on the train personally (provided of course that the power was turned off)- I think 2 hours is the maximum time anyone should have been left trapped in these conditions before evacuating the train, or at least giving people an option of whether to walk to the nearest bus stop or wait it out. (if the more impatient/intrepid had been given the chance to walk, conditions would be much better on the train for the remainder!)
Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: stuving on May 02, 2015, 11:30:30 If this story (http://www.cityam.com/214903/clapham-junction-travel-delays-reason-why-passengers-couldn-t-be-rescued-hours) is to be believed, the sequence of events wasn't as I understood it. Only one train was evacuated to trackside, and that was close to an exit gate onto Wandsworth Common, so marshalling and walking time were not big issues. Before that about six trains were recovered to stations under their own power, and one needed a locomotive but was also moved with its passengers on board. Only then was the last train found to be unmovable, and the power removed, hence its passengers had to stay on board until then.
So it comes down to whether there is an exceptional reason for that to take 5 hours, or whether it did but shouldn't. It might have been a very hot day, so whatever the plan says has to be able to meet the time limit set on that basis. But note that "if" at the start. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: dviner on May 02, 2015, 12:02:02 Would prefer to take my chances on the tracks than be trapped on the train personally At which point, you would become part of the problem, rather than providing a solution. Title: Re: Today's MAJOR failure (30/04/15) Post by: Worcester_Passenger on May 02, 2015, 14:17:39 The small diesel engine makes sound sense.
Several years ago, I was taken round one of the Belgian trolleybus systems. Each of the trolleybuses had such a diesel engine. Not particularly for use in the case of a loss of power, but for use within the depot. Instead of installing a lot of overhead, they'd simply put a loop round the depot. The buses arrived and left under overhead power, but then moved round the depot using their diesel engines. There's a trade-off here : the buses were more expensive, but they'd saved on the costs of stringing the overhead. Would this same logic apply to rail vehicles and depots? I could see it simplifying the operation of carriage washers! This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |